Subsidising the MRC?

We’ve received the following comment from a reader and believe it deserves to be highlighted as a separate post. The issues that are raised are significant –

To what extent is Council ‘facilitating’ the C60 development with ratepayer funds?

How ‘competent’ is the traffic department’s report and when errors are pointed out these are totally ignored? Why?

Council’s ‘policy’ states that any traffic calming initiatives must first undergo ‘community consultation’. When 92% of residents in a local street state that suggested works are unnecessary, then why is Council so insistent that the works go ahead?

If councillors ‘decided’ to support officers, then again and again we have major governance issues relating to decision making behind closed doors.

The Redan Road bicycle lane installation smacks of collusion – everywhere else in the municipality installing bicycle lanes only involves painting a white line on either side of the road and adding some cycling symbols.

Not so Redan Road – it involved – landscaped traffic calming treatments all along the street and which at one point reduced a wide four lane road to one lane – a loss of about 15 on street parking spaces (a number of residences are single fronted Victorian/Edwardian that have limited on-site parking capacity and on-street parking is already in high demand) which was disputed by the Glen Eira/O’Brien Traffic Department who claimed only a loss 5) – 93% of residents signed a petition against it – under the proposal several the landscaped traffic treatments would permanently prevent them from parking within 100 metres of their residence. – Resident discussions with Ward Councillor/s and the Glen Eira/O’Brien Traffic Engineers proved several of the engineers claims blatantly wrong, described the cost of the installation as a waste of ratepayers money particularly as all residents wanted was a couple of speed humps and the cycling lanes. – Residents and Councillor/s agreed the speed hump solution would be pursued. – Residents have now been advised that at the last Councillor Assembly (despite the local law prohibits decisions being made in Assemblies) it was decided to implement the Glen Eira/O’Brien recommendation. No doubt the tactic of letting ward councillors off the hook on contentious issues by non-ward councillors (who have probably never seen the Road) out voting them on the basis of “greater good” for the community is once again being played.

Oh did I forget to mention . Redan Road, North Caulfield, is an wide angled road (approx. 400 metres in length) that links Balaclava Road with Kambrook Road. . The Balaclava junction is smack dab across from Caulfield Park next to the controlled Bambra and Balaclava Roads intersection. . Kambrook Road end is smack dab opposite the MRC’s Caulfield Village’s main Kambrook Road pedestrian access point and that the MRC is going to undertake the installation of pedestrian safety treatments at the Kambrook Road/Redan Road intersection. . That Redan Road residents do not have a major traffic volume/speed issue since the 40 k/h speed limit and combined the restricted left turn and pedestrian safety refuge (from Kambrook to Redan) was implemented in 2007/2008. Ditto with the Balaclava Road/Redan Road intersection. . That the Caulfield Village Development Plans focus on Redan Road as a major pedestrian/cycling route to access Caulfield Park and a tram stop that is further away then the Kambrook/Balaclava tram stop. . How lovely it would be for the Caulfield Village residents to stroll/cycle down a wide, landscaped, tree lined avenue on their way to the already “at capacity” Caulfield Park – not to mention a photo op for the Caulfield Village marketing materials.

No doubt the Redan Road residents are greatly consoled by the fact that their already Caulfield Village impacted amenity will be further reduced by unwanted traffic treatments, that will prevent them from parking near their residences and that are being partly funded from their rates.

Related

7 Responses to “Subsidising the MRC?”

Stuff local residents and stuff what happens to our money if this will help the vested interests get what they want. The development plan craps on about pedestrian access to transport and safe walking and cycling areas. The panel report talked about the available open space nearby. That means Caulfield Park. It’s obvious that Redan street is basic as a thoroughfare and the whole development hinges on such access points. What it does to locals and their streets doesn’t enter into the equation as long as the mrc get their way. Have now got to add traffic department to the planning department as willing accomplices.

The MRC own PIlling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz. They put through C60 and got them self’s on to the trust. Pilling got to be Mayor. We need a royal commission into the Racecourse, C60, Land swap and Tresses dirty deals?.

The whole development approval process sucks at both a State Government and Council level.

Deals have been done by both that shaft the residents and exponentially increase the already over generous subsidies to an industry that focuses on gambling and alcohol sales and is rife with corruption and underpaid, abused staff.

Kinda ridiculous that Council labels the Friends of Caulfield Park an “elitist group” that considers Caulfield Park its private preserve and that refuses to negotiate or listen to reason yet sacrifices residents amenity and probably hands out millions of subsidies (roads and drains) to the MRC C60 development.

Yet pretty much from the day the Racecourse Reserve was created the VATC/MRC, which are undeniably an “elitist group”, have consistently and blatantly treated the Racecourse Reserve as its private preserve. Over the 150+ year history if aint serving racing interests it has refused to negotiate or listen to reason or fulfill its obligations. The Glen Huntly Reserve was exorcised from the racecourse reserve for this very reason.

The real shame is that despite Council negotiation cave in and millions in subsidies via the C60 approval and infrastructure works, Council (and residents) got zip. Yeah sure the MRC spent a paltry $1.8m (especially compared to the estimated half billion C60 profit) on the Centre of the Racecourse. The reality is that the MRC still strictly controls it and while making public access difficult they claim it is under utilised (duh!!!!) and therefore the public park and public recreation usages should be removed from the Racecourse Reserves purposes.

The best story I’ve ever heard about the traffic engineering is when they were putting in the bike lanes in narrow McKinnon road. One resident told me that she complained to council that it wasn’t safe and that she couldn’t even get out of her driveway because of cars parked and that cyclists wouldn’t have a hope of evading cars. They wrote back telling her that McKinnon road was perfect for a bike lane because it was flat. She then asked them if it’s so flat then how come the road and the area is called McKinnon Hill? They’ll come up with any excuse to cover up all their mistakes or just keep on doing what they want to do. That’s typical of council in everything.